|
|
 |
|
|
Internal remedies not exhausted (779,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Internal remedies not exhausted
Total judgments found: 51
1, 2, 3 | next >
Judgment 5196
141st Session, 2026
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the amount of moral damages awarded to him following the setting aside of a decision that was declared unlawful.
Consideration 3
Extract:
Aucune conclusion tendant à l’octroi de dommages-intérêts pour tort matériel n’ayant été formulée dans le cadre du recours interne, le requérant ne saurait demander pareille réparation devant le Tribunal (voir, en ce sens, les jugements 4801, au considérant 6, 4796, au considérant 16, 4752, au considérant 2, 4304, au considérant 8, et 3967, au considérant 5).
Il s’ensuit que la présente requête doit être déclarée irrecevable en ce qu’elle tend à obtenir la réparation du préjudice matériel.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3967, 4304, 4752, 4796, 4801
Keywords:
internal remedies not exhausted; material damages; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 5194
141st Session, 2026
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the implied rejection of his request for reimbursement of the costs he incurred in national criminal proceedings.
Considerations 7-10
Extract:
“The EPO raises a number of preliminary issues concerning the complaint. It is only necessary to address one, namely the failure of the complainant to lodge an internal appeal […]. The relevance of this arises because of Article VII of the Tribunal’s Statute. It is not in issue that no internal appeal was lodged. At least in the ordinary case, that failure would render irreceivable a subsequent complaint because the complainant had not exhausted the internal means of redress, as provided in Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute. However, the complainant seeks to avoid this consequence of his failure to lodge an internal appeal because of Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Tribunal’s Statute. That provision operates in circumstances “[w]here the Administration fails to take a decision upon any claim of an official within sixty days from the notification of the claim to it”. The question that then arises is whether there was such a failure. […]
[I]t is necessary to assess whether the 27 April 2017 decision constitutes a “decision upon [those] claim[s]” within the meaning of Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Tribunal’s Statute, which forestalls an implied rejection that could be referred to the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 3975, consideration 5, 3428, consideration 18, and 3146, consideration 12).
The Tribunal’s case law clearly establishes that the expression “decision upon any claim” in Article VII, paragraph 3, of its Statute comprehends “any action [taken by the Administration] to deal with a claim” (see, for example, Judgment 4820, consideration 6(a), and the case law cited therein). Plainly, in this case, the decision of the Administrative Council […] was action by the Administration to deal with the claim for reimbursement of costs. […] Accordingly, Article VII, paragraph 3, had no application and the complainant was not absolved from the requirement that he exhaust the internal means of redress arising from Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute, which would have included lodging an internal appeal against the implied rejection of his request for review […].
[…] As the complainant failed to lodge an internal appeal, he has not exhausted the internal remedies available to him as required by Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal. In the result, his complaint is irreceivable and should be dismissed.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3146, 3428, 3975, 4820
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal; failure to exhaust internal remedies; internal remedies not exhausted;
Judgment 5158
141st Session, 2026
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, a former WHO official who was dismissed for serious misconduct, impugns what he considers to be an implied decision to reject his appeal against the termination of his appointment.
Consideration 3
Extract:
“Under the Tribunal’s case law, an argument based on an inordinate and inexcusable delay may not be accepted unless a complainant shows that the requirement to exhaust the internal remedies has had the effect of paralysing the exercise of her or his rights. It is only where the competent bodies are not able to determine an internal appeal within a reasonable time, depending on the circumstances, that she or he is permitted to come directly to the Tribunal. A complainant can make use of this possibility only where she or he has done her or his utmost, to no avail, to accelerate the internal proceedings and where the circumstances show that the appeal body was not able to reach a decision within a reasonable time (see Judgments 4268, considerations 10 and 11, 4200, consideration 3, or 3558, consideration 9).
The fact that the Organization did not respect a time limit set out in its own rules does not mean that the internal proceedings were necessarily paralysed (see Judgment 3889, consideration 3).”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3558, 3889, 4200, 4268
Keywords:
delay; internal procedure; internal remedies not exhausted;
Judgment 5105
141st Session, 2026
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his suspension from duty pending investigation into alleged misconduct in connection with outside activities, and his subsequent discharge for misconduct in connection with the publication of a defamatory blog.
Consideration 3
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal holds that any arguments and claims by the complainant concerning the 28 April 2021 decision to close his harassment complaint are irreceivable as time-barred. The 28 April 2021 decision was final and challengeable before the Tribunal within ninety calendar days, consistent with Articles 12.2. and 12.3. of the Staff Regulations and Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Tribunal’s Statute. Additionally, the 28 April 2021 decision expressly informed the complainant of the available judicial remedy and its associated time limit. The complainant failed to challenge this decision before the Tribunal within the prescribed deadline.
Keywords:
failure to exhaust internal remedies; internal remedies not exhausted; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 5081
140th Session, 2025
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to increase the employee pension contribution rate.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; failure to exhaust internal remedies; internal remedies not exhausted; late appeal; new time limit; payslip; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; time limit;
Consideration 3
Extract:
The Tribunal will address, ex officio, a threshold issue related to the receivability of this complaint (see Judgments 4764, consideration 2, and 4597, consideration 8). Under Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute, “[a] complaint shall not be receivable unless the decision impugned is a final decision and the person concerned has exhausted such other means of redress as are open to her or him under the applicable Staff Regulations”. In accordance with the Tribunal’s case law, a complainant cannot be treated as having exhausted the internal means of redress available unless the internal appeal was filed in compliance with the formal requirements and within the prescribed time limit (see Judgments 4973, consideration 3, 4929, consideration 4, 4573, consideration 3, and 4103, consideration 1). Therefore, “the fact that an internal appeal is lodged by a complainant out of time renders her or his complaint irreceivable [...]” (see Judgment 4830, consideration 7). Moreover, it is immaterial in this regard that an internal appeals body wrongly entertained an internal appeal that was time-barred (see Judgments 4780, consideration 7, 3754, consideration 12, 3351, consideration 17, 3330, consideration 2, and 2675, consideration 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2675, 3330, 3351, 3754, 4103, 4573, 4597, 4764, 4780, 4830, 4929, 4973
Keywords:
failure to exhaust internal remedies; internal remedies not exhausted; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 5049
140th Session, 2025
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the IAEA’s decision to impose a 30 per cent cap on her claims for the reimbursement of medical expenses submitted under Appendix D to the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; internal remedies not exhausted; medical board; medical expenses; service-incurred;
Judgment 5013
140th Session, 2025
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the Global Fund’s decision to terminate his employment contract while he was on certified sick leave and its failure to grant in a timely manner his requests to be placed on Continuous Disability Benefits.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; disability benefit; internal remedies not exhausted; time bar; time limit;
Consideration 7
Extract:
[I]t is firmly established in its case law that strict adherence to time limits is essential to have finality and certainty in relation to the legal effect of decisions (see, for example, Judgment 4103, consideration 1). As aptly noted by the Tribunal in Judgment 4184, consideration 4, “the time limits for internal appeal procedures [...] serve the important purposes of ensuring that disputes are dealt with in a timely way and that the rights of parties are known to be settled at a particular point of time”. Pursuant to this consistent requirement of strict adherence to time limits, where a complainant does not comply with prescribed time limits for lodging a request for review, a grievance and/or an appeal, the complaint will be irreceivable for failure to exhaust all internal means of redress in accordance with Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute (see, for example, Judgments 4426, consideration 9, 4374, consideration 8, and 4221, consideration 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4103, 4184, 4221, 4374, 4426
Keywords:
internal remedies not exhausted; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 4955
139th Session, 2025
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject, on grounds of irreceivability, his compensation claims for what he considers to be a service-incurred illness.
Consideration 4
Extract:
[On 22 February 2021, the complainant filed the present complaint before the Tribunal, being directed against what he considers to be an implied decision of rejection of his counsel’s letter of 21 December 2020.] It is clear from the contents of the 31 July 2019 letter from the complainant and of the 22 December 2020 letter from his counsel that both communications constituted requests that the same 16 July 2019 decision be reviewed. Even if the complainant’s 31 July 2019 request to “reverse the [16 July 2019] decision” were to be regarded as having been made and dealt with under Articles 40 and 41 of Appendix D, the evidence shows that, at the time of the 22 December 2020 letter, and when he filed his complaint before the Tribunal, the complainant had already been issued on 2 December 2020 with a decision on his request for reconsideration of the 16 July 2019 decision, thus providing him with a final decision on his compensation claims pursuant to Article 42 of Appendix D. […] [P]ursuant to Staff Rule 12.02.1(D), the 2 December 2020 decision is the decision that the complainant, being a former staff member at the time when it was taken, should have impugned before the Tribunal within the ninety-day time limit prescribed by its Statute. He did not do so. It follows that the aspects of the complaint involving the complainant’s 26 June 2019 compensation claims made under Appendix D are irreceivable.
Keywords:
failure to exhaust internal remedies; final decision; implied decision; internal remedies exhausted; internal remedies not exhausted;
Consideration 5
Extract:
As the Tribunal recalled in Judgments 4830, consideration 6, 4742, consideration 9, and 4655, consideration 15, in a dispute involving a challenge to individual decisions, compensation for injury arising from the alleged unlawfulness of such decisions could only be granted as a consequence of their setting aside, which presupposes by definition that they have been challenged within the applicable time limit.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4655, 4742, 4830
Keywords:
compensation; failure to exhaust internal remedies; internal remedies exhausted; internal remedies not exhausted; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 4921
139th Session, 2025
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests ESO’s decision not to apply the ceilings defined in its Staff Rules and Regulations to the cost-of-living differential of the monthly household and children’s allowances paid to him.
Consideration 4
Extract:
Inasmuch as, in his internal appeal, the complainant only contested his December 2019 and January 2020 payslips and only asked for a revision of the calculation made in them, this complaint is irreceivable pursuant to Article VII, paragraph 1, of of the Statute of the Tribunal, to the extent that he requests the Tribunal to order ESO to annul all subsequent payslips in which the contested decision was implemented.
Keywords:
iloat statute; internal remedies not exhausted; payslip; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4918
139th Session, 2025
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his non-appointment to a P-4 position.
Considerations 5-7
Extract:
The complainant has failed to demonstrate that there was a “new” administrative decision to challenge beyond the Director-General’s decision of 18 December 2018. A decision made in different terms, but with the same meaning and purport as a previous one, does not constitute a new decision giving rise to new time limits (see Judgment 586), nor does a reply to requests for reconsideration made after a final decision has been taken (see Judgment 1528). See, for example, Judgments 3735, consideration 4, and 2011, consideration 18. […] The Tribunal notes that, although the complainant submits in his complaint brief that his request for review dated 18 March 2019 concerned “a decision not to appoint [him] in the 2018 promotion”, the claim presented in such request for review was identical to the claim made in his first request for review submitted on 30 November 2018, namely to be appointed to a P-4 Inspector position. It is apparent that both communications from the OPCW dated 25 February and 28 March 2019 were merely confirmatory of the 18 December 2018 decision. The Tribunal finds that they did not constitute a new decision on the matter and, therefore, did not trigger a new time limit (see, for example, Judgment 4116, consideration 4) […] Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute requires that “[a] complaint shall not be receivable unless the decision impugned is a final decision and the person concerned has exhausted such other means of redress as are open to her or him under the applicable Staff Regulations”. As the complainant did not file an appeal against the 18 December 2018 decision pursuant to Rule 11.2.02(a)(i) of the OPCW Staff Regulations and Interim Staff Rules, it follows that his complaint is irreceivable.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1528, 2011, 3735
Keywords:
administrative decision; confirmatory decision; internal remedies exhausted; internal remedies not exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4830
138th Session, 2024
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the implied decision dismissing his request for his administrative situation to be regularised, the decision ordering his transfer, the decision to award him a special post allowance in that it excluded a certain period and the amount in question was insufficient, and the decision announcing his promotion in that it was not retroactive and did not place him on step 7 of grade G.4.
Consideration 6
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal notes that, in his letter of 12 December 2018 addressed to the Secretary-General, the complainant based his claims on administrative decisions that he did not challenge within the period prescribed by [...] Staff Rule 11.1.2. It is clear from the evidence that the complainant did not submit a request for reconsideration in respect of his job description or his transfer when he was transferred on 1 January 2014 [...]. Neither did he submit a request for reconsideration in respect of the payslips which he subsequently received every month.
The Tribunal cannot accept the complainant’s argument that his request of 12 December 2018 was not time-barred because its purpose was to obtain compensation for the whole of the injury he allegedly suffered for the period from 1 January 2013 to 1 March 2020, and that actions of this type are not, as such, subject to any particular time limit.
The Tribunal considers this manner of presenting the case contrived, because, in a dispute involving a challenge to individual decisions, as here, compensation for injury arising from the alleged unlawfulness of such decisions could only be granted as a consequence of their setting aside, which presupposes by definition that they have been challenged within the applicable time limit. Endorsing the complainant’s argument would have the effect of authorising an organisation’s staff members in practice to evade the effects of the rules on time limits for filing appeals by allowing them to seek compensation at any time for the injury caused to them by an individual decision, even though they did not challenge that decision in time. Such a situation would scarcely be permissible having regard to the requirement of stability of legal relations which, as the Tribunal regularly points out in its case law, is the very justification for time bars (see, for example, Judgments 4742, consideration 9, and 4655, consideration 15).
It follows that the complaint is irreceivable to the extent that it concerns the implied decision dismissing his request of 12 December 2018 for his administrative situation to be regularised, because he failed to exhaust the internal means of redress as required by Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4655, 4742
Keywords:
compensation; failure to exhaust internal remedies; implied decision; internal remedies exhausted; internal remedies not exhausted; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
Consideration 7
Extract:
According to firm precedent based on the provisions of Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal, the fact that an internal appeal is lodged by a complainant out of time renders her or his complaint irreceivable for failure to exhaust the internal means of redress available to staff members of the organisation, which cannot be deemed to be exhausted unless recourse has been had to them in compliance with the formal requirements and within the prescribed time limit (see Judgments 4655, consideration 20, 4160, consideration 13, and 4159, consideration 11, as well as, for example, Judgments 2888, consideration 9, 2326, consideration 6, and 2010, consideration 8).
However, there are exceptions to this general principle laid down in the Tribunal’s case law. One of them is the case where the defendant organisation misled the complainant, depriving him of the possibility of exercising his right of appeal in violation of the principle of good faith (see, for example, Judgments 4184, consideration 4, 3704, considerations 2 and 3, 2722, consideration 3, and Judgment 3311, considerations 5 and 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2010, 2326, 2722, 2888, 3311, 3704, 4159, 4160, 4184, 4655
Keywords:
failure to exhaust internal remedies; internal remedies exhausted; internal remedies not exhausted; late appeal; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal;
Judgment 4817
138th Session, 2024
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns a decision ordering a new investigation into her alleged misconduct and suspending the disciplinary measures pending the new investigation and a new decision in the matter.
Consideration 10
Extract:
In her rejoinder, the complainant submits that the Organization failed to order that she be reimbursed the amount of approximately 19,088 Swiss francs she had voluntarily repaid to the WTO on 13 March 2018 for the spouse allowance, the health insurance subsidy for 2015, and the home leave lump sums for 2016, pursuant to the finding of the OIO Report (some of which, she argues, she did not even lawfully owe). This claim seems inconsistent with the complainant’s former conduct, as she voluntarily offered to repay to the WTO the amounts which she had acknowledged were not owed to her. In any event, this is a new claim, submitted for the first time before the Tribunal, and it is, thus, irreceivable, pursuant to Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute.
Keywords:
claim; iloat statute; internal remedies not exhausted;
Judgment 4809
137th Session, 2024
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks a contractual redefinition of his employment relationship and the setting aside of the decision not to renew his last contract.
Consideration 3
Extract:
It is true that the contracts in question did not themselves set any time limit for submitting an appeal in their connection. However, under the Tribunal’s case law, since the complainant intended to obtain recognition as an official, he ought to have lodged his grievance within the time limit applicable to any ILO official under Article 13.2(1) of the Staff Regulations, that is within six months of the treatment complained of (see Judgments 2888, consideration 8, 2838, considerations 4 to 6, and 2708, considerations 6 to 8). Admittedly, it would in practice have been awkward for the complainant to dispute the lawfulness of the initial contracts in question because he might have jeopardised further employment by the Organization and it would have been difficult for him to prove at the outset that, as he submits, he was engaged in ongoing duties. But these considerations do not hold good for subsequent contracts, and they ought to have been challenged at the latest within six months of their respective expiry dates. As has been said, the complainant – who had never requested that his employment relationship be redefined before it was ended – did not submit his grievance until 14 February 2007. The evidence shows that, at that date, the only contracts that could still be challenged within the prescribed time limit were an external collaboration contract for DIALOGUE between 6 November and 15 December 2006 and the last contract of this type, granted to the complainant at the end of the preceding contract for employment in the same department and which ended on 8 January 2007.
Pursuant to Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal, the fact that the complainant’s grievance was out of time insofar as it sought the redefinition of all the other contracts renders his complaint irreceivable to the same extent for failure to exhaust the applicable internal means of redress, since they cannot be deemed to have been exhausted unless recourse has been had to them in compliance with the formal requirements and within the prescribed time limit (see, for example, Judgments 4655, consideration 20, 4159, consideration 11, and 2888, consideration 9).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2708, 2838, 2888, 4159, 4655
Keywords:
internal remedies not exhausted; late appeal; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4801
137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the appointment of the Principal Director of Human Resources.
Consideration 6
Extract:
No claim for material damages was made in the internal appeal and cannot now be made in the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 4304, consideration 8, and 2360, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2360, 4304
Keywords:
internal remedies not exhausted; material damages; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4780
137th Session, 2024
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the monthly amount deducted from her pension as contribution to her after-service health insurance in the period from May 2001 to December 2019.
Consideration 7
Extract:
[T]he ITU consistently stated, including before the Appeal Board, that the complainant’s appeal was irreceivable for failure to address to the Secretary-General a request for reconsideration of the contested decision, as per the requirement in Staff Rule 11.1.2, and there is nothing on the file to indicate that the Secretary-General waived that requirement. Accordingly, the Tribunal considers that the ITU did not exempt the complainant from the requirement to submit a request for reconsideration in order to exhaust internal remedies.
Keywords:
internal remedies not exhausted; waiver of internal appeal procedure;
Consideration 4
Extract:
It is firmly established in the Tribunal’s case law that a staff member is not allowed, on her or his own initiative, to evade the requirement that internal means of redress must be exhausted before a complaint is filed with the Tribunal (see Judgments 4443, consideration 11, and 3458, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3458, 4443
Keywords:
internal appeal; internal remedies not exhausted; receivability of the complaint; review of administrative decision;
Consideration 7
Extract:
The fact that the Appeal Board considered that the appeal was partly receivable and went on to examine it on the merits, on the basis of a deliberate “flexible approach” to receivability, is immaterial.
As the Tribunal said in Judgment 2536, consideration 5:
“The complaint must therefore be found irreceivable insofar as it follows an internal appeal which was itself irreceivable. Contrary to the view put forward by the complainant, the fact that the Appeals Board examined not only the issue of lack of jurisdiction or irreceivability but also the merits of the case does not render the defendant’s objection to receivability inadmissible.”
(See also, for example, Judgments 3330, consideration 2, and 3311, consideration 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2536, 3311, 3330
Keywords:
internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal remedies not exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Consideration 8
Extract:
As the complainant did not address a request for reconsideration of the initial decision […], in accordance with Staff Rule 11.1.2, she has not exhausted internal remedies. Her complaint is therefore irreceivable, according to Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute, and must be dismissed.
Keywords:
internal procedure; internal remedies not exhausted; review of administrative decision;
Judgment 4775
137th Session, 2024
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to “terminate [her] contract after [her] resignation”.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; direct appeal to tribunal; failure to exhaust internal remedies; former official; internal appeal; internal procedure; internal remedies not exhausted;
Consideration 4
Extract:
While Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Tribunal’s Statute, allows for direct recourse to the Tribunal “[w]here the Administration fails to take a decision upon any claim of an official within sixty days from the notification of the claim to it”, this paragraph must be read in conjunction with paragraph 1 of Article VII. According to Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal, “[a] complaint shall not be receivable unless the decision impugned is a final decision and the person concerned has exhausted such other means of redress as are open to her or him under the applicable Staff Regulations”. It follows that the Tribunal cannot hear a complaint against an implicit decision to reject a claim unless the complainant has exhausted all available internal remedies (see Judgments 4517, consideration 4, and 2631, consideration 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2631, 4517
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal; failure to exhaust internal remedies; implied decision; internal remedies not exhausted;
Consideration 8
Extract:
FAO Manual paragraph 331.4, entitled ‘Appeals by Former Staff Members’, provides that former staff members shall have access to the appeals procedure. FAO Manual paragraph 331.4.1 specifically states that “[f]ormer staff members [...] may lodge an appeal in accordance with the provisions of this Manual Section subject to Manual [paragraphs] 331.4.2 and 331.4.3”.
Keywords:
failure to exhaust internal remedies; former official; internal appeal; internal procedure; internal remedies not exhausted;
Judgment 4763
137th Session, 2024
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject her claim that her illnesses be recognized as service-incurred.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; internal remedies not exhausted; receivability of the complaint; step in the procedure;
Judgment 4760
137th Session, 2024
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the failure to establish a medical board to examine the percentage of her permanent loss of function.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
claim moot; complaint dismissed; failure to exhaust internal remedies; final decision; internal remedies not exhausted;
Consideration 2
Extract:
Under the Tribunal’s settled case law, the provisions of Article VII, paragraph 3, must be read in the light of paragraph 1 of that Article and are not applicable where the official concerned can use internal remedies, in which case these must be exhausted, as required under paragraph 1, before a complaint may be filed with the Tribunal (see Judgments 4517, consideration 4, and 2631, considerations 3 to 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2631, 4517
Keywords:
failure to exhaust internal remedies; internal procedure; internal remedies not exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4728
136th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the Medical Committee’s decision to further extend his sick leave until 31 March 2015 and its failure to recognise that he suffered from invalidity attributable to the performance of official duties.
Consideration 6
Extract:
The short answer to both complaints is that neither concerns an administrative decision of the type which can be impugned in proceedings before the Tribunal. The decisions of the Medical Committee to extend the complainant’s sick leave were to facilitate the further investigation and consideration of the complainant’s medical condition, at least in the eyes of the majority, as part of the process of determining whether he was disabled and entitled to an invalidity benefit. They were both “steps in the process” directed towards the making of the final decision about the complainant’s entitlement (see, for example, Judgment 3893, consideration 8). Therefore, the complainant failed to exhaust internal means of redress, as is required by Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3893
Keywords:
administrative decision; internal remedies not exhausted; medical examination; step in the procedure;
Judgment 4704
136th Session, 2023
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the determination made on his Clearance Certificate, upon his separation from service, that there was no medical reason to believe that he was incapacitated due to illness constituting an impairment to health likely to be permanent or of a long duration, as well as the decision to separate him from IAEA while on sick leave.
Considerations 5-6
Extract:
It is well established in the Tribunal’s case law that “[o]rdinarily, the process of decision-making involves a series of steps or findings which lead to a final decision. Those steps or findings do not constitute a decision, much less a final decision. They may be attacked as a part of a challenge to the final decision but they, themselves, cannot be the subject of a complaint to the Tribunal” (see Judgments 4404, consideration 3, 3961, consideration 4, 3876, consideration 5, and 3700, consideration 14).
[…]
The Tribunal finds that neither Dr L.’s certification nor the IAEA’s statement in the impugned decision for the purpose of explaining Dr L.’s certification constitutes a final decision within the meaning of Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute. The complainant’s claims concerning his incapacitation are therefore irreceivable.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3700, 3876, 3961, 4404
Keywords:
internal remedies not exhausted; step in the procedure;
1, 2, 3 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
